HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad ( District Forum for short), has filed this revision petition to challenge the order dated 11th April, 2005 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ( State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission in cross-appeals, filed both by the complainant and the petitioner/opposite party, modified the order of the District Forum only to the extent that there was no justification for an award of Rs. l0,000 as compensation since interest @ 12% per annum had been ordered to be paid on the deposits. In essence thereof, the appeal of petitioner/authority for setting aside the order of the District Forum was dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant was allotted a plot in Sector 2, Faridabad at the price of Rs. 3,19,619. The entire price of plot had been paid and a letter offering possession of the plot had been issued by the petitioner/authority on the 16th of May, 2003. However, while it was the case of the respondent/complainant before the Fora below that it was incumbent upon the petitioner/authority to have offered possession only after completing the development works, the offer of possession on paper was meaningless. Since despite full payment and repeated approach the petitioner/authority did not complete the development works, she was forced to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The petitioner/authority resisted the complaint and in written submissions stated that possession had been offered to the complainant on the 16th of May, 2003 but did not emphatically assert that all the development/infrastructural facilities had been provided. Their contention that development work takes sufficient time and the facilities were provided to the allottees in Sector 2 was treated as admission of lack of development by both the Fora below and for this deficiency in service, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/authority to make necessary development around the plot in question and deliver the physical possession of the plot on completion of the development work. It further ordered the petitioner/authority not to charge any interest, extension fee, penalty of any type from the complainant until delivery of physical possession of the plot after development and also pay interest @ 12% per annum on the deposits made by her. Additionally, a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and a cost of Rs. 1,000 was awarded. Aggrieved upon the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner/authority filed an appeal before the State Commission. The complainant too was not happy with the relief granted to her by the District Forum and filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission vide the impugned order disposed of the appeals holding that the stand of the petitioner/authority amounted to evasive denial which was nothing but an admission and while upholding the finding of the District Forum that development had not taken place around the plot in question, maintained its direction to hand over the physical possession of the plot and also pay 12% interest on the deposits but deleted the component of Rs. 10,000 as compensation as the interest awarded was adequate. It was in this background that the petitioner/authority feeling aggrived had filed this revision petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case.